Obama has said he admires Doris Kearns Goodwin’s wonderful Lincoln biography, Team of Rivals.
“He talks about it all the time,” says a top aide. He is particularly
intrigued by the notion that Lincoln assembled all the Republicans who
had run against him for President in his war Cabinet, some of whom
disagreed with him vehemently and persistently. “The lesson is to not
let your ego or grudges get in the way of hiring absolutely the best
people,” Obama told me. “I don’t think the American people are
fundamentally ideological. They’re pragmatic … and so I have an
interest in casting a wide net, seeking out people with a wide range of
expertise, including Republicans,” for the highest positions in his
government. … “I don’t want to have people who just
agree with me,” he said. “I want people who are continually pushing me
out of my comfort zone.” Obama said he’d be particularly interested in
having high-ranking Republicans advising him on defense and national
security. “I really admire the way the elder Bush negotiated the end of
the Cold War — with discipline, tough diplomacy and restraint … and
I’d be very interested in having those sorts of Republicans in my
Administration, especially people who can expedite a responsible and
orderly conclusion to the Iraq war — and who know how to keep the
hammer down on al-Qaeda.”

What a contrast from the Bush Administration! It should be noted that it’s virtually certain Obama will make good on this philosophy by retaining Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. However, the philosophy also applies to his rivals within the Democratic tent. The best example is his selection of Joe Biden for Vice-president, who differed with Obama about the Iraq war. During the selection process, Obama noted that he was looking for a Veep who would disagree with him and force him to think “outside the box” and in Biden he has found exactly that.

Just like Biden (only far more successfully so), Hillary is literally a rival to Obama, and it was the strength of her challenge that readied Obama to face McCain in the general election. Likewise, the challenge of having her as Secretary of State will be an asset in and of itself for Obama – this is something that the progressive left doesn’t seem to understand.

It is true that Clinton had been critical during the primary of Obama’s willingness to engage in diplomacy with “rogue nations”, but then she herself acknowledged she’s engage in much the same thing. Neither Obama not Clinton were talking about personal sit-downs with Ahmadinejad, but rather engaging Iran using high-level diplmats and envoys (including, perhaps, the Secreary of State). It is also true that Clinton talked of “obliterating” Iran, but the context of that was in the hypothetical scenario of Iran launching a nuclear attack on Israel (something that Iran lacks the capability to do, and which Iran would be deterred from doing even if it had that capability, partly because of strong and obvious-to-everyone statements of truth like Clinton’s was). Clinton and Obama sparred on these controversies during the primary, but neither was as significant as those with an instinctual aversion to Clinton (or Obama, for that matter) claim.

All in all, Hillary is an inspired choice for Secretary of State, and there’s a lot of arenas sorely neglected by the current Administration – most notably the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – where she stands to be able to bring a fresh approach and face to the diplomatic challenge ahead. It’s good for the country and the world for her to be SecState, and it shows that Obama is serious about putting his Country First.